The Decision to Bomb Syria is Criminal

In the United Nations charter article 2(4) the members of United Nations have agreed on a prohibition towards violence between states. More specifically it is stated that all members shall refrain in their international relations from threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. From the wording of this paragraph it is clear that violence cannot be accepted in the international relationships between states. Considering the history of the United Nations, and why it was created, it is not strange that such a provision was included in the charter. The charter was agreed upon immediately after the Second World War, a war that claimed more than 60 million people. For the people back than, that first hand had experienced the horrors of war, it was common sense to make sure that states would not anymore be allowed to engage in violent conflict.

Sadly, this provision have many times been abused, misinterpreted, and misused. The charter allows for armed conflict in some instances, and that is as a measure of self-defense, when the Security Counsel approves it, which is when there is a threat to international peace and security, and when the armed forces of another nation are invited. There are no other exceptions but these to the prohibition of the use of force. However, it is obvious that charter has not been respected throughout the years. United States is one of those countries that several times have moved against the prohibition on violence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and now, the bombings in Syria, these are not in alignment with the charter, the Security Counsel has not approved them, and hence, according to international law, they are illegal.

Unfortunately the legality of these actions is debated. Both Britain and the US have claimed that their ‘interventions’ in Syria are legally sound in that the cause of action is self-defense, and that they have an invitation from Iraq to help protect their country from the Islamic State. In terms of self-defense, the argument used is that ISIL represents a threat to both the US and Britain.

The problem with this type of reasoning, this constant nitpicking and interpretation of the UN-charter is that the prohibition on use of force is slowly being drained of all substance and meaning. And what is missed in the judicial debate is the true intention behind the UN-charter. In the preamble of the charter, the very first words written down are the following:

“We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow”

The Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties is the legal instrument that governs how conventions are to be applied and interpreted. How treaties are to be interpreted is laid down in article 31, where is stated that:

‘A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose’

It cannot be made clearer that the purpose of the charter is to abolish bloodshed. War is not an acceptable condition – and that must be the starting point from which the charter is interpreted and applied. It is obvious that if you start nitpicking, and deliberately look for loopholes and ways to legitimize war, you will be able to do that. Though that is not how the charter is supposed to be read and applied. That is not an honest and respectful way of reading and applying the charter, but rather a devious and deceptive way of circumventing principles, and rules placed by previous generations that first hand experienced the horrors of war.

The use of force can never be humanitarian. The use of force can never be justified on the grounds that it furthers democracy and human rights. AND – more importantly – the Use of Force cannot be justified within the bounds of the UN-charter through shaky legal arguments based on nitpicking and deviously interpreting words with a clear meaning, a clear purpose, and a clear context. The UN-charter is and will always stand as an instrument of peace, and by implication does not allow use of force, and any form of leeway from that main rule must be interpreted restrictively.

A problem with the charter is that, even though a country might be found guilty of breaching international law, it does not make state leaders personally liable for their decisions. Hence, in our current system, it is possible for state leaders to make unlawful decisions, causing massive suffering, without consequence. This does not make sense, just as civilians are able to face consequences when they commit murder, so should leaders and decision makers face consequences when they make decisions that, in breach of international and humanitarian laws, cause thousands upon thousands to die.

At the moment, the United Nations is more of a farce than an empowered institution capable of having real impact, and the charter, more of a document with words that sounds nice, rather than a document of principles that are lived for real. This can all be changed. The United Nations does have the potential of becoming a World Organ that can stand as a pillar of stability in difficult and tough times. For that to happen, changes must be made, and those changes must come from within the individual nations themselves. Because the United Nations, is an organization of countries that has united, and will as such only be as impactful as the involved countries allow it to be.

And here, we, the countries located in the western hemisphere have a great responsibility. Because at the moment, we have the means, we have the military strength, we have the influence, and in that, we have the opportunity to change the direction in which our world is currently moving. Even as individuals, we have the opportunity to make a difference. Because it us that elect our leaders, it us that inhabit and make up the constituency of our countries – and thus we are responsible for the actions of our leaders even though we admit that or not.

Peace is a Human Right, and the Use of Force is a Crime against Human Rights as well as International Law, and we all, regardless of where we are born, deserve a life in which our Human Rights are honored.

Day 15: How to obtain your right...?

In this blog I want to make a “critic”, if you want, to the perspectives that have been brought on the “Basic Income Studies”:

http://www.usbig.net/index.php

Quote: “Rights are about advancing and defending human freedom. They are universal and they are inalienable. I cannot give away my right without degrading my humanity. To be meaningful, a right is an aspiration, a goal to which we march.”

If one aligns and fosters the circumstances, then one aligns the consequences that we are searching…yet, there is a question that should be asked: Is that point going to be able to sustain itself? Our current system was implemented in the same way isn´t it? One creates a controlled environment, through the repetition of circumstances aligned in a determined pattern of morals, ethics, rules and suddenly you have an environment, a system operating accordingly within the alignment that has been superimposed with the “initial starting point of the creation of this system” which was (apparently) to create the best society possible based on the “common good”, yet, “the goods were never available to everyone”, they were never common to everyone, implying that those that were not aligned with the “best civilization”, the best civilization being by definition that which is more advanced on culture, and therefore that which is supposed to teach everyone else how to live, are not worthy of been considering as “advanced enough to take part in the important decisions and so on”, which is also what happens on the structure of our educational system, those that are not “properly educated” you know, they are there, they are criminals, they are ignorants of what it means to be in a society, that is why they deserve to be poor, and so on and so on; that is why the modern societies are apparently able to sell you their law of attraction and their secrets to success and essentially their education models, yet, none of them were capable to consider a structure that can actually functions for each and every human being? Those that didn´t align themselves with the rules were not able to be part of this great dream, “The American dream” because you have to be sleep (or brainwashed enough) to believe it. 

Have a look at our model of consumerism, our society is divided into classes according to the amount of money available, is your position in the system, implying access to education, food, clothes, house, etc.; Hasn´t been said that our human rights are paid through money when they should be by definition, that which is given to everyone unconditionally? And the point remains the same, If Human Rights were real, they would not require to be defended or protected, one shouldn’t have to compete for them, to struggle for them, to have to get money to pay for them.

The question is: Is it possible to propitiate the circumstances without any understanding or education available for everyone in the same direction of consequences which also implies the constitution and manifestation itself of a right? Obviously not

Right to labor! So…we need to propitiate the circumstances to develop our right to develop, create and work? This is fascinating statement, because, it’s like saying that you need to propitiate the circumstances to bring that which is actually inherent to the Human, which is the development itself of work, yet, of course not disregarding that each and every form of human activity have consequences, which actually brings forms of development, creation and work (because everything requires a certain input), nevertheless, what we are developing, creating, working on, is really abusive stuff, weapons, drugs, unhealthy foods, vicious cycles of greed, jealousy, anger, violence, you name it. Maybe the question is: what is it that we are creating through our labor? How is it that we are going to direct the development of humanity to bring the change that we are looking for? What are we going to produce? More unnecessary stuff that is going to be pilled on mountains of garbage in the outskirts of our cities? 

Another interesting question arises independently, yet, connected and intertwined with all of these…What is the purpose of our work? To sustain ourselves and our survival? Our partner? …or…the future generations?

See, the ultimate goal of marriage is reproduction; it was defined in this way in the antiquity, and so this is lived today, but I want you to see the mental relationship that we have created in regards to our human interactions; it would seem that when we "learn" to form relationships…I say learn because they are established on moral and ethical basis and regulations for you to be able to define and maintain these relationships “within and without”. But what would be our interactions without these defined structures? If you think that it would be chaos, I strongly suggest you to first you see the interaction in your physical body, the body is made up of trillions of living molecules that are aware in your body, each one of them with the capacity to experience pain that is actually expressed and manifested through the rest of the cells thanks to the nerve connections that link it with the rest of their companions, each one expresses their individuality, yet they are also  collectively manifesting themselves in a body, and that is, the interaction itself that manifests from the smallest point as this molecule individually, to all of the other molecules with which it interacts, and that is what makes possible, for each and every one of these cells, to be sustained with and by each other, starting with itself, and just considers the fact that a cell that is altered in its constitution , showing "a cancerous principle" that can harm the group, it completely removes itself from the equation, giving the opportunity to others to keep the interaction with the welfare of the body; it is only when the infection is too much that it is inevitable that the cancerous manifestation continue generating discomfort on that principle throughout the physical body, it is something that has to be manifested in the entire group of cells for the cancer to keep its constant growing as this cancer with permission and acceptance of each one, in its induced abuse to continue throughout the physical body, because what affects one, affects all and the same goes amongst the humans, however, What is the principle that is allowing the separation between humans that is this cancer? This is due to and internal and external consequence, a consequence that is manifesting itself as the disregard of what exists in the environment, from our fellow humans, to the environment in which we exist, pollution of the environment that has manifested disease, pain, violence , abuse.

First of all we should look at the relationship we have created towards this world, towards ourselves and our fellow man. See, If the ultimate goal of our interactions, is only to get to the perfect relationship to create a family and “have kids”, which has been abstracted within the concept that the experience that we define as love, is what will sustain it, then it seems that we have not understood what it really mean or interactions and our communication, with ourselves and the physical, is simply not understood, this is the consequence of our consumerist culture and it can be seen in the fact that there is not real understanding of the interaction with our own mind, how it can actually cause consequences that just seem to be "aberrant for humans" as the manifestation of abuse and are considered unmentionable, and that kind of “studies” are reserved for college levels, in which the students are misleaded in their way of understanding how the mind works and operates, because the psychologist are not being prepared for resolving the problems within the mind, they are being trained to make everyone fits in the model of the “society”.

Work is not competition, is not survival, is not gaining money, imagine what would happen if the cells had the kind of separation that we as humanity are accepting and allowing, or even the molecules within this existence, if no one cares about the other maybe this existence never would have existed. What is the manifestation of dead if not the separation of ourselves from the physical body? It is said that when one dies, the body is left behind, yet, do you think the heaven could be a “nice place” knowing that your beloved ones are dying in wars, starving in poverty, suffering due to the survival system? Would you be able to go to such a place leaving everything behind to live in complete bliss? Obviously not, what if that was the ultimate test? It is said that the kingdom of god is within man, the heaven is on earth, yet if we disregard what is here, what heaven could exist if we focus only in what is awaiting for us in the other life searching for our self-interest? The heaven on earth must be created, by man, as simple as that, and for that, we cannot be separated, we must work together, so, it doesn´t matter if you increase the minimum wage to an sufficient amount to cover the basic needs without first have a structure upon which we can re-educate "the culture of humanity" I refer specifically to competition, and survival. Because then we are going to return to the same bullshit, some people are going to be fighting to have the better car, the better house, and are going to fight for more and more and more = greed, why not to guaranty to everyone the best house possible, the best car possible, without the programed obsolescence that comes “added” in your products?

I suggest you to read the following blogs to understand in a more specific way, how this was placed:

http://creationsjourneytolife.blogspot.com/2013/05/day-387-anarchists-mothers-and.html

http://creationsjourneytolife.blogspot.com/2013/05/day-388-anarchists-mothers-and.html

Look at the Declaration of The Rights of the Children, there is a fascinating thing that we should consider, first of all, this declaration came “after” the Declaration of Human Rights, and I mean, that is strange, because aren´t our children also humans? For practical understanding of what I want to explain here: For you to be able to exercise your rights, the State has to recognize you as a citizen, and that is only acquired after having come of age, why do I say this? Because it’s interesting that if the children were including in the declaration of human rights, maybe they would be actually really consider as the pillar of the entire Humanity, which implies that the principle of prevention of Crime, Poverty, Diseases, etc., would be a total different situation that what can be seen today, and to understand this, I suggest you to read the blog of “Children’s Human Rights | Equal Money” link that you can find here: 

http://marlenvargasdelrazo.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/367-childrens-human-rights-equal-money/

The question is why is it that one has to wait until you are properly indoctrinated, sorry, have come of age, for you to be able to exercise your rights?

“The child is already born into limitation as young as 13 weeks of gestation in the mother’s womb where the parental patterns are integrated as part of the mind that the new born will develop throughout an entire lifetime. This is how no matter how much we would want to apply basic human rights, the conditions that limit the newborn are already integrated by default as the result of who we have accepted and allowed ourselves to be and become in our  mind that becomes the very genetic information transferred to every newborn.”

Following this quote, just consider the fact that the chromosomes that are transferred during the sexual intercourse, are in fact what? It´s genetic memory; just consider the amount of emotions and feelings that you experience in one day, the patterns and orientation that they have in relation to your thoughts, for this you have to be really self-honest, and see what is it that you accept and allow, within that, just take into consideration the fact that, all of it is going to become part of you genes, as it has become so much a part of yourself that the substances that nurture your genetic material is in fact making and developing the “nature of your genes and of course what would be the nature of your child”; see the children have a predisposition to follow certain ideas and patterns, but it is only as consequence of what is already integrated within them, as them, isn´t that also why when the woman is pregnant, is necessary that she follows certain diet? Because that is part of the components and “materials that are going to mold and shape the physical body”, yet, the memory and “nature” of the genes, will give to the child the mold and shape of the “personality of their parents”.

“This also implies that no matter how great the parents can be, by virtue of existing in one single environment in which we are all existing in, it is virtually impossible to prevent the danger, abuse and insanity of this world to affect your children, because this is the culture that we have created wherein there is little to no support for children to develop the trust and confidence within themselves to walk throughout a lifetime – instead, the schooling process and education at home becomes the survival-training in a world where life is not a given right and where each one is taught to ‘fight for their right to live’ instead of it being given and assured from the cradle to the grave.”

And what the child is going to see around him would be consider as “normal”, why? Because he/she will just follow the “nature reflected by those equal to her/him”, and of course it will be accepted by consequence of that predisposition of following, denying any common sense as that is not “valuable as the logic that you require to survive in this system”.

The point in itself, within the marriage bond, results in the creation of the family, being the superior interest of the Nation, as it is the pillar of the establishment and existence of the Nation itself, however, the manifestation of our interaction and participation within this system, that was supposed to resemble the existing physical interaction within us, is that of separation. Many comments have come from this, from: "That’s how it is human nature" to "is because of the government", because "it reflects what exists within us" however, the constitution of our physical form, the magnitudes of the separation that is manifested in our actions as humans, doesn´t come from our physical body, it comes as a reflection of what exists in our minds. If you have followed the links of the Creation Journey to Life blog, you will see that the coercive control imposed onto the children, didn´t just came out of nothing, it was mold and shaped and reinforced from the genetic code impressed in the child, showing us what we have accepted and allowed within us. That is where the “Basic Income “cannot sustain itself, and I mean, yes! It is a step to develop a new system, yet it’s insufficient.

From the Bill of Rights of the Equal Life Foundation:

16. The Equal Right of future generations to receive a living planet free of pollution, disease, hunger, violence and destruction so that life shall endure and thrive into eternity now and forever.

Participate and this time; let's really work on a world that is best for all

http://Desteni.org/

http://desteniiprocess.com/

http://lite.desteniiprocess.com/

https://eqafe.com/

http://equalmoney.org/

Day 7 Security of Law

Yesterday I was interrogated while coming back into Canada from the United States of America. I was driving my car. I was required to to drive my car over to the Canadian Boarder Security Office Headquarter for an extensive vehicle search. I decided I would video record the ordeal since I had a video camera on my phone and I thought it was ridiculous that the boarder police were going through all my stuff and examining and searching my vehicle with meticulous attention to detail. The boarder officer asked me if I was video recording and I told him I was and he asked me if I knew why they were searching my vehicle and I said, "ya it's for security purposes".

In looking at the word 'security', I see that there is many meanings. Initially I just associated security with protection and safety....however with further consideration of financial terms, security is money.

Lets look at the legal definition of 'security':

Protection; assurance; indemnification.

The term security is usually applied to a deposit, lien, or mortgage voluntarily given by a debtor to a creditor to guarantee payment of a debt. Security furnishes the creditor with a resource to be sold or possessed in case of the debtor's failure to meet his or her financial obligation. In addition, a person who becomes a surety for another is sometimes referred to as a "security."

Source: West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved

 

After the boarder interrogation I was asking myself about the legitmacy of boarder security.

 

In looking into boarder security and questioning the legitimacy of boarder security, I noticed that any product that was deemed to be an issue at the boarder crossing is able to be purchased within my counrty. I noticed that the boarder security was all about money....protecting money interests....controlling money interests and regulations. I noticed that cocaine for example is not produced in canada....yet there is a shit ton of it here and that it is in fact big business....and for a shit ton of it to be here, it is not making it's way here in itsy bitsy little amounts....no, it's being brought through boarders in huuuuuge amounts. Why and how does cocaine make it's way through the boarder in huuuuge amounts? ? ? MONEY. Money moves products.

 

I was looking at the word  'country' and 'countries' after my experience in travelling to and from a country. I noticed the words 'count' and 'try'....or 'count and tries'. I associated count with accounting and money as like coutning the value...and I connected the word try and tries to the fact that every country is playing the same game of trying to accumulate value and worth...and is always counting the money as like strengthening security because the wealth of a nation is dependent upon it's security protections...because when security protections are in place a country can operate in all sorts of crazy ways to uphold security protections at the expsense of individual privacy rights and protections because the security of a country is worth more than the security of one individual...and an individual citizen of a country is an essential product of the country that contributes to the total value of the country.

 

Also, I noticed and remembered that war is about money, oil and security protections. Is there any real difference besides the spelling in the words; money, oil, and security?

 

Also, I looked at wartime propoganda slogans along the likes of, "we must fight to protect the security of our country."

 

I looked at boarder security as a means of terrorism security protections...as like preventing the participation of terrorist activity. I then looked at the point that I didn't forsee a real issue with terrorism if we had a sound economic system as like Equal Money Capitalism. See http://equalmoney.org I examined the fact that our entire world system is rooted in terrorist activity.

 

I experienced a little bit of anxiety within myself throughout the boarder interrogation experience even though I had nothing to hide....I feared the potential loss that could happen from the incident...even though it didn't seem rational for me to be charged with some bogus crime and be imprisoned.  Then again our legal system isn't based on common sense rationality. Experiencing anxiety was hell. Our shared reality reflects a prison planet and the prison planet reflects our mind imprisonment.

 

Lets change the nature of our minds to that which is best for all Life here. http://desteniiprocess.com

 

Lets bring forth a world where All Life is of the highest value and All Life is secured in the greatest ways possible. 

 

 

Day 6 - When Social Rights become Meaningless

Why is there such a big difference between what we declare in our constitutions and international agreements and the actual world we are creating?  

In this blog we will look at social ground rights. This is a specific form of constitutional rights, and we will look specifically at the situation in the Netherlands. Ground rights are a type of rights in a constitution that in theory express ‘the human dignity’ and ‘respect for the individual’, such as the right to privacy, the right to free speech and the right to non-discrimination, etc.

In Dutch law there is a difference between classical ground rights and social ground rights. Classical ground rights will be those rights that are supposed to protect the citizen against abusive tendencies from the government (such as the right to individual freedom and privacy). Here the government stands accountable and the citizen can take the government to court for infringing on his classical ground rights.

With social ground rights, on the other hand, the government is giving itself social responsibilities in relation to the welfare of the population, however this is done without there being any form of accountability.

An example would be the goal to provide “sufficient employment” (Art 19. of the Dutch Constitution: “Improvement of sufficient employment is an object of concern of the government”. See also Art 20: “The subsistence of the population and the spreading of the wealth is an object of concern of the government.”). One could ask what is “sufficient employment”? Hence it is never possible for a citizen to make the government or any institution accountable for not being able to provide “sufficient employment” – because “sufficient employment” conveniently means nothing.

Social ground rights often sound good, but when having a closer look, we see in the very wording of those rights that they stand as empty promises without any form of accountability.

In Equal Money Capitalism for instance the objective is to create 100% employment. That is a clear commitment that cannot be misunderstood. It means that any person who is not able to get employment has the legal right to a job – which must then also be provided, as jobs are that which generates income, which is how the right to a rich and equally abundant life for all is ensured. Obviously Equal Money Capitalism is based on the premise that there is always more than enough work to do – because the journey to perfect and improve life on earth equally for everyone is certainly never complete – and therefore jobs will always be available.

In the current form of capitalism we have become used to the idea that Human and social rights don’t really mean anything, - and hence to the idea that life has inherently no value - and that it is okay for half the world to exist in poverty combined with skyrocketing figures of unemployment, because “hey, we are doing our best.”

This will certainly no longer be acceptable in Equal Money Capitalism. The fulfilling of its social commitments will be the primary way in which the effectiveness of the new system can be measured. The social rights in Equal Money Capitalism will thus be actual commitments that can be measured so that the written words and the lived reality become Equal and One.

For more information, read: economistjourneytolife.blogspot.com

Day 1: You Should Know The Law! (Really?)

In this blog I will discuss the principle – and idea that exists within law that each citizen of a country has a obligation to know it’s laws – and I will show how unreasonable this assertion is, and how we can change the point so that we instead have a law that is practical – useful and best for all.

One thing that I’ve learned while studying law is that it’s extremely complex – it’s a network of do’s and do not’s interwoven in a complete abyssal array, and chaos of non-specific words – and the information as to how to interpret and read the laws is hidden, and spread all over the place.

An example would be that – in order to understand how a particular law functions about using narcotics – you have to go and find a court case from 1950 – where it’s explained how a particular word in the law is supposed to be understood; and I mean – on top of that – the courts insists upon writing in a language that is ancient and accordingly almost completely incomprehensible.

Now – imagine that on top of this chaos of words that not even the most experienced lawyers, and law professors are able to fully navigate themselves within – there exist a requirement on each citizen – that he SHOULD know the law.

So – in Sweden you’ll be able to be convicted – and incarcerated because you did something that you didn’t even know was criminal to begin with – because apparently you’re supposed to know the law – but just how reasonable is this idea that each one should know the law when it’s obvious that even if you’d dedicate several life times just to understand one single nations laws – it would be a project far to large to be accomplished; as such – the conclusion can be made that this idea that we should all know the law – is just rubbish – it’s an IDEA and not a physical – practical possibility.

Now – in relation to this it’s also interesting to ask oneself the question – if someone breaks the law, and doesn’t know about it – can the law then still be motivated with saying that the purpose of law – and punishment – is to uphold some type of moral standard in society? But how can any such standard be upheld when nobody have a clue as to what the standard is because it’s simply to difficult and hard to understand the law?

The fact that there is an entire education dedicated to studying law shows that there is a serious flaw in the justice system – it shows that justice is not about producing a human character that is best for all – but that it’s about politics, it’s about tactics, and it’s about unpractical and imaginary principles – as to how people should behave, and live that aren’t in alignment with what is REALLY here in this world.

Thus – in order for the law to fill any functional purpose it must be SIMPLE and easy to understand – for EVERYONE – and it must have the sole purpose of producing an effect that is best for all. This is how we suggest that the law is to be established in the Equal Money System – then we would never need to hire a lawyer ever again – as each and everyone would be able to read and comprehend the law – and see the common sense within it.